You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #72: wow could I have posted something... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. wow could I have posted something...
but as I said, I'm out of this discussion in this thread.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -L. Merion school official to turn over computer/full "i love it" e-mail chain in court records Hannah Bell  Apr-24-10 04:40 AM   #0 
  - another update: United States Attorney seeks webcam photos  maddezmom   Apr-24-10 04:46 AM   #1 
  - You are beyond belief...  PCIntern   Apr-24-10 04:53 AM   #2 
  - your questions are straw. you aren't interested in the answers, just in misrepresenting my  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 04:56 AM   #3 
     - Be GLAD of those who misrepresent your motivations.Everyone else KNOWS what they are.  Richard Steele   Apr-24-10 05:06 AM   #6 
        - let's hear, then.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 05:09 AM   #8 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-10 08:40 AM   #55 
  - Gee, she's only had a few MONTHS to learn how to destroy evidence.  Richard Steele   Apr-24-10 04:57 AM   #4 
  - and i imagine that could be easily checked.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 05:00 AM   #5 
     - I can replace a drive and fake the install date quite easily.  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 05:08 AM   #7 
     - can you manufacture your own hard drive, too?  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 05:09 AM   #10 
        - What does that mean?  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 05:13 AM   #11 
        - don't you know, master computer tech?  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 05:45 AM   #16 
           - I'm just trying to figure out why I should manufacture one.  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 05:55 AM   #19 
        - You can buy hard drives at the store.  Lucian   Apr-25-10 06:41 PM   #105 
           - they wouldn't? you sure?  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 10:18 PM   #137 
              - Absolutely positive.  Lucian   Apr-25-10 10:49 PM   #142 
                 - was that before or after you transferred the data on the old hard drive to the new one?  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 11:14 PM   #147 
                    - I didn't transfer any data.  Lucian   Apr-25-10 11:39 PM   #155 
                       - so no one could have told the difference between the new hard drive and the old one (before frying)?  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 11:55 PM   #157 
                          - No.  Lucian   Apr-26-10 12:47 AM   #162 
                             - if the old one had information and the new one was empty, no one could have told the difference?  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 12:51 AM   #163 
                                - The employee could destroy the old hard drive.  Lucian   Apr-26-10 01:00 AM   #164 
                                   - i believe it takes more than a few minutes to install what would look like, e.g.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 01:07 AM   #165 
                                      - Tell the Feds your old hard drive got fried/quit working...  Lucian   Apr-26-10 01:21 AM   #166 
                                         - mmm - i tend to believe that would set them looking for where you purchased the new one.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 01:25 AM   #167 
     - You never waited for evidence before, dude. You're suddenly gonna start now?  Richard Steele   Apr-24-10 05:09 AM   #9 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-10 05:42 AM   #15 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-10 05:47 AM   #17 
           - Evidently her belief is that  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 06:01 AM   #21 
           - entirely your unwarranted assumption. once more.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 06:09 AM   #23 
              - Judging from your continued defense of the school district  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 06:18 AM   #26 
                 - it's easy to assume lots of things. one should always question one's assumptions.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 06:33 AM   #30 
                    - I'm considering this from a civil liberties standpoint  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 06:39 AM   #31 
                       - 95% of the discussion here on this case consists of speculation about  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 06:48 AM   #33 
                          - That is your interpretation. People are outraged that this has happened, unlike you who insists  boston bean   Apr-24-10 06:59 AM   #35 
                             - "these voyeurs and the perversion of their actions"  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 07:04 AM   #37 
                                - Ma'am, I don't always think the "courts" get it right, do you?  boston bean   Apr-24-10 07:09 AM   # 
                                   - See I just don't know where this idea came from  shedevil69taz   Apr-24-10 02:04 PM   #70 
                                      - you know "the sickness" of "those people" -- how, exactly?  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 02:05 PM   #82 
                                         - especially when a perfectly acceptable whitewash might be in the making. nt  boston bean   Apr-26-10 04:55 AM   #176 
           - you've already made several ad hom attacks on me specifically, including this latest  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 06:06 AM   #22 
     - You're waiting for nothing...  PCIntern   Apr-24-10 05:32 AM   #12 
        - projection?  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 05:35 AM   #13 
        - Not replying?...I see that as 'straw'...  PCIntern   Apr-24-10 05:37 AM   #14 
           - if you accuse me falsely, i'll respond.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 05:51 AM   #18 
              - No, it makes you complicit in the promotion of fascism...  PCIntern   Apr-24-10 05:57 AM   #20 
                 - a pervy fascist, now. yet you're trying so hard to avoid personal attack.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 06:11 AM   #24 
                    - He might have given up  boston bean   Apr-24-10 06:15 AM   #25 
                       - Evidently there is NOT a problem with that as far as that person is concerned.  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 06:20 AM   #27 
                       - of course that's false, but don't let that stop you.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 06:45 AM   #32 
                          - Hannah, when a gov't official takes the 5th of course there will be  boston bean   Apr-24-10 06:52 AM   #34 
                             - you're confused. 1) a public school IT head isn't a "government official".  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 07:09 AM   #40 
                                - Oh, you know all about the law, and you know what the outcome will be.  boston bean   Apr-24-10 07:12 AM   #43 
                                - i have no idea what it will be. that's my point. you apparently think pressuring courts  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 07:14 AM   #45 
                                   - Excuse me, but any entity that would take pictures of me in my home without my knowledge  boston bean   Apr-24-10 07:16 AM   #46 
                                - Then no one working for the government in a nonelective position is a government official  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 07:14 AM   #44 
                                - From a legal perspective,  Ms. Toad   Apr-24-10 07:27 AM   #49 
                                   - Thank you, that was what I thought as well. nt  boston bean   Apr-24-10 07:42 AM   #51 
                                   - ...  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 01:11 PM   #67 
                                   - lol. that must be why she pled the 5th for the opposition lawyer's dep, as the judge advised her,  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 12:58 PM   #65 
                                      - Nice authoritative sources.  Ms. Toad   Apr-24-10 03:08 PM   #73 
                                         - guess you didn't absorb the entire lesson then. *any* statement can be used  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 01:07 PM   #75 
                                         - The school's own disclosures show pictures of students  liberalhistorian   Apr-25-10 09:21 PM   #128 
                                         - Really, Ms. Toad. Don't you know that lawyers.com is every bit  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 02:19 PM   #85 
                                            - What was I thinking. . .  Ms. Toad   Apr-25-10 04:39 PM   #99 
                                            - Med school? Elitest claptrap! n/t  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 07:36 PM   #117 
                                            - "elitist"  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 11:23 PM   #150 
                                            - The inapplicability of the 5th in civil cases? and you're supposedly a lawyer? lol.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 06:40 PM   #104 
                                            - You think a 1924 case supersedes the FRCP and subsequent jurisprudence?  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 07:34 PM   #115 
                                            - gee, and that marbury v. madison was clear back in 1803.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 08:56 PM   #123 
                                            - U.S. Supreme Court 1972, Kastigar et. al. v. United States  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 09:17 PM   #126 
                                            - The key words are "compulsory self-incrimination"  Ms. Toad   Apr-25-10 09:33 PM   #129 
                                            - "compulsory self-incrimination" is not in conflict with "avoidance of a fishing expedition,"  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 09:52 PM   #133 
                                            - They are not in conflict - BUT  Ms. Toad   Apr-25-10 10:27 PM   #139 
                                            - They're not synonymous, but that lead to your conclusion: "*anything* you say can and will be used  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 11:08 PM   #145 
                                            - If you read carefully,  Ms. Toad   Apr-26-10 06:01 AM   #177 
                                            - double post...  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 07:28 AM   #179 
                                            - Ms. Toad, my understanding of the depo is that  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 07:31 AM   #180 
                                            - in the context of 1) the plantiffs citing federal wiretapping, etc. laws & 2)  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 12:08 PM   #198 
                                            - She ain't ever gonna get it--much easier to claim we aren't lawyers.n/t  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 10:19 PM   #138 
                                            - I said i don't believe *you*, specifically, are a lawyer.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 11:10 PM   #146 
                                            - My dear hannah,  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 11:30 PM   #152 
                                            - Let's check. Here's Ms. Toad's ONLY discussion of the 5th: it doesn't mention civil cases.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 11:54 PM   #156 
                                            - Again, I'm sorry you failed to understand either one of us.  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 12:33 AM   #160 
                                            - again, i'm sorry you like to blow smoke, but it's getting rather boring.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 12:43 AM   #161 
                                            - So you really, really, don't think I'm a lawyer?  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 02:02 AM   #168 
                                            - oh, please. post 164, i quote your entire post. i don't feel the need to  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 02:13 AM   #169 
                                            - No, I meant what I said. You simply do not understand it, no  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 02:32 AM   #170 
                                            - lol. smoke on.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 02:40 AM   #171 
                                            - Wow. I made you go from defending Cafiero to throwing her under the bus,  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 02:53 AM   #172 
                                            - hardly, but smoke on.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 02:57 AM   #173 
                                            - I continue to defend her, thanks for playing.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 12:37 PM   #200 
                                            - even though you equate her with an asshole out for themself  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 12:46 PM   #201 
                                            - i take for granted that there's no solidarity under capitalism. i continue to defend  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 12:57 PM   #204 
                                            - more bullshit  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 01:08 PM   #205 
                                            - *everyone* looks after their own ass first in our system, or goes under.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 01:15 PM   #206 
                                            - I have NEVER accused anyone of a sex crime in this case  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 11:24 PM   #212 
                                            - pure gold - bookmarking this one  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 10:16 AM   #184 
                                            - Bookmark and cache, as I expect a great deal of  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 10:50 AM   #190 
                                            - screenshot, wall hanging, pillow needlepoint  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 11:26 AM   #195 
                                            - Well, I think that some posters play the "I was personally attacked"  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 11:39 AM   #196 
                                            - and all without any tearing out of hair  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 12:18 PM   #199 
                                            - I found it all quite amusing, which I suppose is the maturity that comes with age.  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 01:31 PM   #210 
                                            - I know what you mean  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 11:36 PM   #213 
                                            - Of course, Kastigar allows the compulsion of testimony from an unwilling person.  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 10:16 PM   #136 
                                            - funny how you left off the important clause: "can compel testimony....by conferring immunity."  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 10:53 PM   #143 
                                            - Did you miss the mention of use vs transactional immunity?  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 11:16 PM   #148 
                                            - no, because it's irrelevant. especially when presented by someone who thinks 5th A protections  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 11:21 PM   #149 
                                            - No, I said the 5th amendment is inapplicable outside  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 11:35 PM   #154 
                                            - see below  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 11:57 PM   #158 
                                            - You need to read what you are posting  Ms. Toad   Apr-26-10 06:11 AM   #178 
                                            - Hi guys!!!  PCIntern   Apr-26-10 07:51 AM   #181 
                                            - It's like a freeper birther thread....  msanthrope   Apr-26-10 10:43 AM   #189 
                                            - did you see this gem?  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 11:01 AM   #192 
                                            - Certainly, an article detailing the rights afforded a citizen of Texas ought to be dispositive  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 10:09 PM   #135 
                                            - sorry you don't understand the scope of the protections of the US Constitution, mr. "lawyer."  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 10:38 PM   #140 
                                            - It's Ms. Lawyer. n/t  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 10:48 PM   #141 
                                            - my apologies for the error.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 10:55 PM   #144 
                                            - Taitzian ... is that a new legal term?  LiberalAndProud   Apr-25-10 06:42 PM   #107 
                                               - 'Taitzian' is mine....and I am durned proud of it. Thank you! n/t  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 07:14 PM   #110 
                       - i've answered that question more times than i can count.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 06:28 AM   #28 
                          - How is it a witch hunt, unless you believe they did nothing wrong, which would lead  boston bean   Apr-24-10 06:31 AM   #29 
                          - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-10 07:02 AM   #36 
                          - If you believe # 1, how you could ever come to conclusion 2 and 3, I have no idea!  boston bean   Apr-24-10 07:07 AM   #38 
                          - because i'm not stupid.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 07:10 AM   #41 
                             - I'm having a hard time withholding judgment. nt  boston bean   Apr-24-10 07:18 AM   #47 
                             - ...  woo me with science   Apr-24-10 07:19 AM   #48 
                             - Wrong again...  PCIntern   Apr-24-10 09:44 AM   #60 
                          - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-24-10 07:11 AM   #42 
                          - Of course they did.  woo me with science   Apr-24-10 07:38 AM   #50 
                             - The system was designed to automatically purge all the images after the tracking was deactivated.  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 12:49 PM   #63 
                                - You contradicted yourself right there  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 01:43 PM   #68 
                                   - this one thing had me stumped  TorchTheWitch   Apr-25-10 03:49 AM   #74 
                                   - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Apr-25-10 11:30 PM   #153 
                                   - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Apr-25-10 01:52 PM   #79 
                          - Holy shit! This argument turns inside out on a meta-level!  JVS   Apr-25-10 02:43 PM   #92 
                          - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Apr-24-10 07:08 AM   #39 
                          - Then answer the one simple question that you've refused  liberalhistorian   Apr-25-10 09:18 PM   #127 
                             - i've never refused to answer that question, have answered it in this thread  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 12:11 AM   #159 
                             - No, you have never directly answered it.  liberalhistorian   Apr-26-10 10:31 AM   #185 
                             - She has refused to answer  Caretha   Apr-26-10 08:18 AM   #182 
        - you aren't the only one  TorchTheWitch   Apr-24-10 08:37 AM   #54 
        - You beat me to it  varelse   Apr-25-10 08:57 PM   #124 
  - False conclusion.  Orsino   Apr-24-10 07:42 AM   #52 
  - false conclusion yourself, as i'm speaking specifically about the pervy scenarios constructed  Hannah Bell   Apr-24-10 12:51 PM   #64 
     - That isn't clear at all. n/t  Orsino   Apr-24-10 02:32 PM   #71 
        - not clear that i was speaking of the email exchange? then why did you leap to conclusions?  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 02:14 PM   #83 
           - Your rant turned very general at the end. n/t  Orsino   Apr-26-10 04:31 AM   #175 
  - I'm going to try this once again  Caretha   Apr-24-10 08:02 AM   #53 
  - She ignores questions she doesn't want to answer and  liberalhistorian   Apr-26-10 10:33 AM   #187 
  - The base fact remains that the parents were not notified of the camera's capabilities.  Pisces   Apr-24-10 08:57 AM   #56 
  - Yet the OP continues to insist that "we don't know" if there was spying.  woo me with science   Apr-24-10 09:08 AM   #58 
  - Another basic fact  notesdev   Apr-24-10 09:39 AM   #59 
  - She'll turn it over to "a computer-forensics firm hired by the district"  woo me with science   Apr-24-10 09:07 AM   #57 
  - OK...I surrender...  PCIntern   Apr-24-10 09:56 AM   #61 
  - You may well be right that there was nothing "pervy" going on, but ...  surrealAmerican   Apr-24-10 10:17 AM   #62 
  - Yep  hobbit709   Apr-24-10 01:46 PM   #69 
  - So I guess the date between you and PCIntern is out?  Forkboy   Apr-24-10 01:03 PM   #66 
  - wow could I have posted something...  PCIntern   Apr-24-10 02:50 PM   #72 
  - This is what I don't get  MrScorpio   Apr-25-10 01:17 PM   #76 
  - without the webcam tracking how could they spy on people?  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 03:15 AM   #174 
  - Oh, yes; because a plaintiff's lawyer's PR spin is always so credible. Who is the gull here?  WinkyDink   Apr-25-10 01:20 PM   #77 
  - she admits herself that she doesn't believe they're credible  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 11:09 AM   #194 
  - robbins are the plantiffs, & i agree, their lawyer's spin is not always credible.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 12:53 PM   #203 
     - yet you admit you defend that when you believe Cafiero is  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 01:21 PM   #208 
  - I can't imagine that anyone here is defending  noamnety   Apr-25-10 01:33 PM   #78 
  - She won't answer this one. nt  woo me with science   Apr-25-10 01:55 PM   #80 
  - +1000  supernova   Apr-25-10 01:57 PM   #81 
  - no one here is or has, not that i expect you to acknowledge it.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 02:17 PM   #84 
     - You aren't sure why it's relevant that a "government employee"  msanthrope   Apr-25-10 02:27 PM   #86 
     - lol. poor readers, you lot are. or good straw spinners. i made no statement about "relevance".  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 02:30 PM   #89 
        - snork snork, snork, "you people," snork  woo me with science   Apr-25-10 02:41 PM   #91 
           - Let's look at the exchange:  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 07:18 PM   #112 
     - Bullshit.  woo me with science   Apr-25-10 02:29 PM   #87 
     - Bullshit yourself. Noting that 96.5% of computers were never activated indicates no pattern of  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 02:38 PM   #90 
        - Oh, you just put it there....not to defend...  woo me with science   Apr-25-10 02:55 PM   #94 
           - i think i made myself perfectly clear, sorry again if you still don't get it.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 07:07 PM   #109 
              - You left off the critical question  noamnety   Apr-25-10 07:22 PM   #113 
                 - To answer your question: the district placed no cameras in kids' bedrooms.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 08:46 PM   #121 
                    - Psychological damage is immaterial. That's just great.  noamnety   Apr-25-10 09:14 PM   #125 
                       - in the context of the evidentiary phase -- as i clearly stated, and you chose to ignore -- yes,  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 10:03 PM   #134 
     - Off topic ad hominem duly noted.  noamnety   Apr-25-10 02:30 PM   #88 
        - no more than your putting false words in my mouth, when i've repeatedly stated the opposite,  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 02:47 PM   #93 
           - "I didn't say that! You put false words in my mouth!"  woo me with science   Apr-25-10 03:04 PM   #95 
           - Apparently 56,000 photos isn't widespread or systemic.  noamnety   Apr-25-10 03:17 PM   #97 
              - I think you have the motivational piece right.  woo me with science   Apr-25-10 03:28 PM   #98 
              - They're not 56,000 pictures of naked kids. None of them have so far been reported to be "of naked  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 06:13 PM   #100 
                 - Your points are not relevant.  noamnety   Apr-25-10 06:33 PM   #102 
                 - quite relevant to your assertion that school personnel were looking at pictures of naked kid  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 06:55 PM   #108 
                    - Oh, here, let me rephrase that  noamnety   Apr-25-10 07:17 PM   #111 
                       - the school district was *able* to take pictures that any reasonable person could conclude  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 07:26 PM   #114 
                       - You are missing the point.  noamnety   Apr-25-10 07:36 PM   #116 
                          - to quote you:  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 08:16 PM   #118 
                             - What does any of that matter to the victims?  noamnety   Apr-25-10 08:23 PM   #119 
                                - your misrepresentations matter little to any students who might have been spied on, probably. nor  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 08:33 PM   #120 
                                   - If that were the extent of the empathy of the school officials  noamnety   Apr-25-10 08:53 PM   #122 
                                      - being as it's the evidentiary phase of a court filing that hasn't even been certified as  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 09:40 PM   #130 
                                         - Imaginary victims? You don't think there are victims here? (nt)  noamnety   Apr-25-10 09:44 PM   #131 
                                            - reading is fundamental, my dear noamnety.  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 09:50 PM   #132 
                       - yep, "rephrasing it" is all you got, i.e. straw.  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 02:08 PM   #211 
                 - Holy shit. Are you actually saying that it doesn't matter  liberalhistorian   Apr-26-10 10:43 AM   #188 
                    - isn't it evident?  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 11:48 AM   #197 
                    - holy shit. are you actually producing multiple straw men from your butt?  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 01:19 PM   #207 
           - See, that's the difference between you and I  noamnety   Apr-25-10 03:14 PM   #96 
              - There was no "policy of using video surveillance in children's bedrooms."  Hannah Bell   Apr-25-10 06:24 PM   #101 
                 - Yes there was...  PCIntern   Apr-25-10 06:36 PM   #103 
  - People, including Matt Drudge, ought to be paying attention to the "spycam" case  tonysam   Apr-25-10 06:42 PM   #106 
  - "Thus blowing out of the water all the pervy scenarios constructed by DU posters."  Contrary1   Apr-25-10 11:24 PM   #151 
  - Hannah has now admitted she doesn't really accept this as truth  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 10:31 AM   #186 
     - unwarranted conclusions much?  Hannah Bell   Apr-26-10 12:51 PM   #202 
        - you own it  TorchTheWitch   Apr-26-10 01:22 PM   #209 
  - The intent isn't the issue.  olegramps   Apr-26-10 08:32 AM   #183 
  - this surveillance crap must make you fondly remember mother russia or some shit.  dionysus   Apr-26-10 10:53 AM   #191 
     - just the latter, methinks..  PCIntern   Apr-26-10 11:07 AM   #193 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC